Hi Melancholy, there is an article by Ajahn Brahm somewhere, where he shows in the suttas it says an embryo is not classed as a person/human/sentient until a certain stage of development is reached. So your vinaya references above are not relevant.

Then, saturated with joy, you will put an end to suffering and stress.SN 9.11

Arahant Brahm stresses that human life begins when consciousness becomes apparent. At the time of the Buddha this would have been when the mother first feels fetal movements I think. This would place the emergence of human life well past what most people accept.chownahEDIT: should be "Ajahn Brahm"......don't know how I gave him a promotion to arahant.chownah

Last edited by chownah on Mon May 12, 2014 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

James the Giant wrote:Hi Melancholy, there is an article by Ajahn Brahm somewhere, where he shows in the suttas it says an embryo is not classed as a person/human/sentient until a certain stage of development is reached. So your vinaya references above are not relevant.

A little knowledge is dangerous. Outspoken monks are easy to criticize for those of us with a little knowledge of Buddhism. When I first encountered Ajahn Brahm I was flabbergasted at some of the things he said. Then I realized that he was coming from a much deeper understanding of the Dhamma-Vinaya than I was.

Most grateful for the link and reference. Such instruction will be of immeasurable benefit and comfort to a lady of my acquaintance.

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap." ‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....

It resonates with me and I personally do not perceive any intended deceit or misleading teaching.

Thank you anyway for your caveat.

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap." ‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....

cooran wrote:I was at a talk by Ajahn Brahm in Brisbane a year or so ago. He told the same jokes I'd heard from him before, the same stories I'd read in his books - and then he said abortion was o.k. up to about 16 or more weeks. At that point quite a number of the audience walked out.

There is clear support for this conclusion in the Vinaya. This states that a monk or nun should never, for the whole of their life, intentionally kill a human being, ‘even to the extent of causing an abortion’. Similarly, they should not have sexual intercourse ‘even to the depth of a sesame seed’. They should not steal ‘even as much as a blade of grass’. They should not lay claim to spiritual attainments ‘even by saying “I delight in an empty dwelling”’. So abortion is clearly regarded as intentional killing of a human being; yet it is the least serious act of this kind.

However we do not accept that it can be proved that the inception of consciousness takes place only after three or four months. This is an ethically arbitrary date which simply marks the present day limits of scientific knowledge, but tells us nothing about the moral status of the embryo. I would very much like to see a study of the effects of abortion on the emotional landscapes of women, and a comparison between women who decided to have an abortion and women who had unwanted pregnancies but decided to bear a child. How do they feel afterwards? Five years later? Ten years later? How many mothers would, when their child had grown up, say that they wished they had had an abortion?

As advised by the Buddha, this is the third advice I heard just after receiving my higher ordination, so does any bhikkhu which including Ajahn Brahm.

"When a monk is ordained he should not intetionally deprive a living thing of life, even if it is only an ant. What ever monk deprives a human being of life even down to causing abortion, he becomes not a (true) recluse, not a son of the Sakyans. As a flat stone, broke, becomes (scmething) not to be put together again, even so a monk, having intentionally deprived a human being of life, becomes not a (true) recluse, not a son of the Sakyans. This is a thing not to be done by you as long as life lasts."

I'll restart my yearlong meditation retreat on 15th June 2014, hence will not be here.

"Bhikkhus, there are these three things that shine when exposed, not when concealed. What three? (1) The moon. (2) The sun. (3) The Dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata."- Anguttara Nikaya, 3.131, Paticchanna Sutta

In my honeymoon period with Buddhism (still not finished?), I was hypnotized by Ajan Brahm's talks, probably due to his slow alpha wave talking. Due to the availability on the web I tend to listen to many of his talks. The more I listened, I found that he brag about himself and disparages others mentioning their names. At a public talk given at Gaia House, Ajan Brahm criticized couple of other ajans for playing politics. Also, once he criticized Professor Peter Harvey about a meditative claim saying, "what meditation he knows!"

IMHO, for a famous teacher like Ajan Brahm, it's more conducive if he simply mentions a situation without names and compare it with a Sutta pointing to the faults. That way people will gain more faith in Buddhism and the way Buddhists deal in real life.

One teaching Ajan Brahm repeatedly talk about is not to find fault with others. At least he should practice what he preached.

Hi, I like Krishnamurti's lectures, and there is one thing that he always try to hammer in to my mind, and that is: dont belive in Krishnamurti - dont belive in gurus - dont belive in prophets - be a light on to oneself ...

And that's what I follow, so who is there to blame?

Besides that, I highly regard many of our dear ajhans, and Ajhan Brahm surely has a place in my puzzle called "walking the path" - but he's also a human and I respect his shortcomings as well of his experiences and inspiring manner and wit.

I've nothing against Krishnamurti (or most other spiritual teachers), and I'm sure his talks and writings are helpful to many, but it appears that stating that he was not a Buddhist practitioner is an accurate statement.

Ajahn Brahm's comment from about 47:38 in the above linked video also seems to be quite consistent with some of the comments on the threads I've quoted above.

Denisa wrote:One teaching Ajan Brahm repeatedly talk about is not to find fault with others. At least he should practice what he preached.

Criticism is not synonymous with "fault-finding". Pointing out something that flagrantly contradicts Buddhist teachings is not fault-finding. As I recall, Krishnamurti did seem to think that there was a transmigrating essence outside of the five aggregates. If Ajahn Brahm suspects that some people might confuse Krishnamurti's teachings with Buddhism, then it would be prudent for Ajahn Brahm to dispel any possible misconceptions.

In the suttas, the Buddha himself criticized people for holding pernicious views, sometimes more harshly than anything I've heard from Ajahn Brahm. If it doesn't come from an unwholesome volition, it's not wrong speech.

I have been following ajahn brahm's teachings for a few years now.I think he is a wonderful teacher, wise, creative, humorous and compassionate.I disagree with the criticisms of him.But that is not important.He is what he is, people can say what they want about him but nobody can change the truth.I am reminded of this verse though...

According to the Lord Buddha Gotama, no one is blameless.

"This, O Atula, is an old saying;it is not one of today only:they blame those who sit silent,they blame those who speak too much.

Those speaking little too they blame.

There never was, there never will be, nor does there exist now, a person who is wholly blamed or wholly praised"

One of Australia's senior monks, Ajahn Brahm, was invited to deliver a speech on Gender Equality at the UN Day of Vesak Convention in Vietnam in May 2014. Unfortunately, Ajahn Brahm was prevented from delivering his speech by a ban imposed by conference organising committee the day before it was due to be given at the Convention. Ajahn Brahm's paper had been pre-approved by the conference organising committee several months before the event.....Ajahn Brahm's paper presented a solid case for the full ordination of women in the Theravadin tradition, supported by references from the Buddha and the Vinaya rules that govern Buddhist monastic life.

Crazy cloud wrote:Hi, I like Krishnamurti's lectures, and there is one thing that he always try to hammer in to my mind, and that is: dont belive in Krishnamurti - dont belive in gurus - dont belive in prophets - be a light on to oneself ...

Thanks a bunch for reminding me that. Buddha is perfect, so does his Enlightenment, therefore his words are giving me enough nourishment, no need to worry about other gurus.

Buddha said: “Ānanda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge, with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.”

polarbuddha wrote:My main point was simply that it is clear human beings cannot touch the sun and it seems highly highly highly improbable that the human mind is capable of bending the laws of physics like we're in the matrix.

according to science, every single sensory impression you are perceiving right now, is taking place in total darkness, deep inside your brain. You are not seeing the world as it is, but rather, your brain's reconstruction of it. However, I would go even further and say that ultimately the only 'thing' we can even actually know and touch as it were, is the mind, and that although there most probably 'is' a physical world 'out there', we can never know it directly; we can only know our mind's reconstruction / interpretation of it. That being the case, it is not matter that has primacy in the scheme of things, but rather, mind that has primacy. So what's to stop an extremely well-developed mind from bending 'the laws of physics' if it so chooses?